Marist Ivy Street Invitational
2021 — NSDA Campus, GA/US
Varsity Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I used to debate public forum for the Lovett School in Atlanta, GA. Did the whole state and national circuit thing blah blah blah. I'm in law school at Georgia State now. Please don't ask as I hate talking about work. Let's begin...
Crossfire is the most important part of a PF round. For some reason, PF culture has evolved to where debaters and judges don’t need to pay attention to the crossfire. The point is to allow impromptu questioning to gain concessions and provoke logical holes. It’s one of the many skills you should learn from participating in this activity. It's my favorite part and I love a feisty crossfire. It's what makes debate, well debate. I find concessions in crossfire binding to the rest of the round even if it is not referenced by any side. Imagine debating on a public stage where someone makes a big oopsy. Do you think people listening will forget about a major concession? This means that should there be any uncertainty in my mind about an argument from a crossfire Q&A, you better believe you should address it ASAP. Therefore, be on your toes. I do time you but I'll let you go over about 10 seconds before I cut you off. Please do not time each other. It comes off as standoff and rude every time.
I do not run prep time for evidence exchange and reading. The reason is because I have seen way too many kids ask for a card, become afraid of using valuable prep to scan evidence that has way too much information on it, then not use it because they really did not get to read it. I would rather we all stop, understand and appreciate the evidence, and have valuable discourse on it than stick with antiquated rules. This is a privilege which means that while the opponent is reading the evidence, no one can do any work during that time. If I see you writing something down during an evidence exchange, I will penalize the offending team. I also have no reservations on calling for a piece of evidence that I think is being used for "nefarious" purposes.
I debated and judge public forum (most of the time). PF to me is a persuasive debate meaning how can I use certain pieces of evidence to convince the general public that my side is the correct side. It’s also a way to create public discourse in an open atmosphere. That means I’m not gonna flow a 4-minute speech past 800 words because, in all likelihood, you’re speaking faster than what an average person can understand to retain your argument. Remember, the skills PF teaches is primarily public speaking to the average public. This is not Lincoln Douglas and it certainly is not policy.
Buzz Words that annoy me: weighing, dropped, flow, extend, card, impact, etc.
Don't parrot what you hear on the national circuit. It is not realistic. Be creative.
I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!
Email for evidence chains and whatnot: email@example.com
Ultra Important Ground Rules
In 98% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is in short supply these days.
-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.
-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for this year's tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.
-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit.
-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.
-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence does not count.
-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative minutia.
-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.
-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.
-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.
I debated 4 years at River Hill High School in Clarksville, MD and then graduated from the University of Southern California (did not debate there).
I am just getting into judging so am not too familiar with the topic or developments in the past 5 years or so. However, I will follow the arguments made in the debate and evaluate them within the framework established by the debaters in the round. As a debater, I mostly ran traditional arguments but am familiar with some elements of critical arguments - they have relevance if debated well and if made relevant to the topic.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
9/22/21 Update: My flowing is a little rusty, please send speech docs. Email is email@example.com
Most of my paradigm is copied from the GOAT Andy Stubbs.
I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.
I'm ok with reading progressive arguments, but I'd prefer not. But if you want, please flesh out the arguments as much as you can. I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.
My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.
Time urself and ur opponents.
I don't care about cross. If you say something important, mention in speech.
-All defense you're going for needs to be extended.
-You have to frontline offense in second rebuttal
-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you
-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited.
***Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc.
*** If you're second flight and the tournament is already running behind and you walk into the room and haven't flipped and pre-flowed, I am going to be annoyed
I was a 4 year debater at Carrollton High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.
my email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions after the round.
I will vote off the flow, however I am not as well versed in all the technical aspects of debate.
1) Always frontline first in your speeches and always signpost
2) Do not bring up any new arguments from second summary onwards
3) No racist or sexist remarks
4) Although I do not flow crossfire I appreciate having lively discussions take place during it
5) I am not your person for theory at all and using theory against unprepared teams is abusive and I will drop you for that
I am a parent of a debater and this is my second year of judging debate.
While I understand the need for fast delivery of the case, if I can not understand you because you speak too fast, I can not note your strongest points.
Please be respectful of your teammate and opponents. Do not interrupt or talk over someone.
Please keep your own time. I will keep it as well, but it is your responsibility.
Director of Speech & Debate at Marist School in Atlanta, GA (2011-present)
Director of Debate/Asst Director of Debate, Fayette County High School in Fayetteville, GA (2006-2011)
Public Forum Paradigm Updated for 2021-2022, Post Kentucky
Email chains are a must and I won't tolerate Google Doc sharing this year. You need to either send Word/PDF documents to the email and/or copy and paste your evidence into the body of the email. I am noticing a proliferation of Google Docs that are locked and/or get deleted once the round is over.
For said email chain, please add email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time.
Both teams should use it and send the constructives at a minimum. I am fine with constructives being sent after they are read in the debate. Please call the email chain something real like "Kentucky Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN." If you read cards, you should send the cards in the order they are read. If you paraphrase, you should send your paraphrasing and the cards that you paraphrased in the order that you read.
some major bullet points adapting to me:
- i prefer you read cards. this doesn't mean i won't evaluate paraphrasing and it doesn't mean that i'll automatically drop you on paraphrasing bad theory it just means that better arguments are made by the experts you quote in your evidence than your interpretation of the experts. i wouldn't waste a strike on me if you paraphrase but still cut cards.
- speeches build off of each other. everything in the final focus should be in the summary. second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal.
- made up jargon is bad. clarity of impact is not a thing.
- i prefer substantive debates to theory debates. i really am not a fan of theory. i have strong beliefs in how debate should be done, but i have stronger beliefs in learning about topics. read theory if you must, and I'll obviously evaluate it - but i do prefer a debate about the topic.
- i value hard work. Debate is hard. It's rewarding because its hard. The debate you have in front of me should a representation of your hard work you spent preparing for that debate.
I did PF at Brophy in Arizona for all 4 years (2017-2021).
My email is email@example.com
Run what you want, but I don't have much experience with progressive args.
In terms of the flow, you can do what you want, but just make sure you extend offense in summary (includes turns and DAs).
Lenient with speaker points as long as you don't say anything unethical (zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior)
Please don't spread.
If I'm judging a round during an Arizona Cardinals football game, treat me like a lay judge.
If you have more specific questions, ask me in round.
TLDR: Standard FYO flow judge, tech>truth, must respond to offense in the next speech (lenient to dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal), warranting is essential, speed must be justified by content, don't be harmful to the debate space, weigh comparatively, have ev at the ready and don't misconstrue, don't read dedev
- For email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Paradise Valley '21 | ASU '25
Did PF all 4 years at Paradise Valley in Arizona (2017-2021), competed at local level first 3 years and almost exclusively national circuit senior year, got to a couple bid rounds, and qualled to NDCA. I was also captain senior year.
**** Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - You will get an L20 for this****
- Debate is a game, win the flow
- Collapse and weigh to clean up the debate; too many people try to win every part of the flow and it almost always hurts them because they don't give themselves the time to do the comparative analysis.
- Weighing goes a long way - as a judge I have to decide who's case is truer/more impactful - do the work for me so I do not have to intervene
- SELF TIME
- If something is dropped, call it out, it's not my job to call it out for you. Dropped evidence has 100% strength of link ONLY if you extend and flesh out the warranting for it.
- You HAVE to frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal (you SHOULD frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal but if opps dump turns on you there's only so much you can do)
- Extend in every speech after rebuttal (Don't be blippy do real extensions - If I absolutely feel there is no way to vote at all because no one extends I either defer to the NEG on policy change topics, or the 1st speaking team on "on balance" topics, etc.)
- Extending through ink is the same thing as conceding your arg
- If you run ANY form of argument that potentially may make your opps uncomfortable, you MUST use get ALL members' approval before the round. Ex: Use an anonymous Google Form prior to the round, make all of us fill it out, and if even one person opts out, you do not run the argument
- If you do NOT use content warnings on args that obviously warrant it, I already am inclined to vote for your opps
- Weighing isn't: "We outweigh on magnitude because it's more people" (nah fam i could care less if u don't do the in-depth comparative)
- Prereqs are my favorite type of weighing because it is the easiest to do the actual comparative
- If yall go for the same type of weighing, then explain why your weighing is more important. Ex: If both teams try to prereq explain why your prereq happens first or subsumes their prereq
- If you have the same impact, please please prioritize any type of weighing EXCEPT magnitude. Ex: If both teams impact extinction, win probability or TF (I genuinely don't know why people do magnitude/severity weighing when it's the same argument)
- The first time you weigh should most definitely not be in final. Personally, I've done weighing sometimes as early as first rebuttal (I obviously don't expect this, but make sure it starts in summary)
- Don't say you have 100% strength of link, you literally only have to say they dropped it lol
- Likely won't even be paying attention, cx is for you
- If something relevant comes up, bring it up in a later speech
- Skipping grand for a min of prep is chill if both teams agree
- Likely won't ever call for cards unless you tell me to
- If I read the card and it is misconstrued it will not bode well for you (PF evidence ethics is dog so gotta enforce it somehow)
- If you have clashing empirics/evidences, tell me why I prefer your evidence -- otherwise I will call for both of them and intervene towards which one I agree with more (I may call cards anyways just to be curious and see who's evidence is rly better, but won't factor that unless you give me a reason to)
- I won't start prep when looking for cards if you find it within reasonable time, otherwise I will
- Don't just send a link and just tell your opponents to ctrl + F, its lazy, you should be cutting the card for them
- Usually high speaks, with a base of 27, but you have to earn a 30
- If you earn lower than a 27, you likely did something unethical in the round.
- Please, please, PLEASE do not go faster than you should be. Too many people try to speak fast so they can sneak responses in and then collapse on them(this is lowkey abusive, just don't do it). Speed is fine, but I should be able to understand it, and it should not sacrifice your clarity
- Avoid it if you can, because I feel that too much nowadays real issues are tokenized for the sake of a ballot. However, theory can be a valuable asset in shining on a light on real issues, so use it only if you actually are trying to promote awareness about the issue you talk about.
- I personally almost never hit theory on the circuit, so make sure you explain it as well as you can. This also means don't be mad if u get screwed after running theory lol
- For theory and theory only, it'll be truth>tech, otherwise there is rly not any point in running it if u cant logically argue it
- Never done this event, and don't know too much about the structure, so treat me like a lay for the most part
- I can handle speed, but it has to be justified by content, meaning don't spread unless every additional word you say helps you (SEND SPEECH DOCS)
- If you wanna know how I flow, read the PF section
- I'll pretty much always disclose
- If you read stupid stuff like extinction good, I have a VERY low threshold for defense on it (this is literally fake PF)
- If you read like 40 turns in rebuttal and flat out response dump, I feel that is incredibly abusive and not at all inclusive to small schools who can't get the same prep (speaking from the perspective of a one entry school), so I will allow your opps to respond to them very late
- TKO rule applies
- If you find a creative way to incorporate sports references or jokes(have to be funny lol) in your speeches you get +0.5 speaks
- Don't postround me, but feel free to ask questions about my RFD
I have debated throughout the state and am pretty simple with my preferences. Speak at a decent pace, I can do speed just don’t spread or I won’t flow. I’m comfortable with lay or tech styles. Final focus should include what was in summary, don’t ever bring up new arguments because I won’t flow them.
Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a current junior at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.
I really hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that arent being explained logically or have a sound warrant.
I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if it’s really important you should bring it up in summary.
Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)
I really hate off time road maps!! I prefer you to just tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.
Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!
I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round.
Dont get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture and also remember you are debating the resolution.
Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!
I did PF at Marist in high school and I'm currently in my second year coaching there. I am currently a sophomore at the University of Georgia majoring in Political Science and Finance
Please put email@example.com on the email chain
Debate is first and foremost a safe and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way.
How I will evaluate debates:
I don’t really care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). I really enjoy hearing all of these different types of debates so do not be afraid to read any arguments in front of me. You do what you're best at and I'll judge it accordingly.
You can go as fast or slow as you want, but speed shouldn't trade off with clarity or argument depth. I won't have any issue flowing any speed you decide to go.
Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. And remember that a claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it.
Please weigh. Strength/Clarity of link and stuff like that are just probability arguments so call it probability not a weird list of jargon words.
Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal
I don't care how "good" you sound when it comes to speaks. If you make high quality arguments you will get higher speaks. I've always believed that speaks don't matter as long as you win so you should always put more effort into high quality research and argumentation than anything else.
VERY IMPORTANT: I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than spamming blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.
I'd prefer you read cut cards but if you paraphrase then you really need to have the cut cards at the ready at a minimum.
A card is not cut if it does not have a complete and correct cite as well as the important/ cited parts of the card being emphasized.
I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good and I often went for theory when debating, but that being said, I wont be biased when it comes to a theory debate.
Just like any other debate you need to win and weigh your impacts. Most teams who lose a theory debate in front of me lose because their answers are more complaints than arguments themselves. Make sure you develop a real impact that can square off against the impacts that come from the initial theory violation.
I generally think that good is good enough when it comes to theory right now in PF. For example if a team reads open source disclosure theory and the other team discloses on the wiki but not open source that is good enough and it'll be harder to win that debate.
I will drop you if you read silly stuff like shoe or speaker point theory